@badp I'm still on the "mods should be able to normal vote" train, but I think it's pretty much dead at this point. I'm not too worried about it on SO though, the community kills bad posts really fast; I cared more on SE sites

>Losing close votes: This shouldn't be too big of a deal. I spend a lot of my time in the Mac and iPhone related tags, and there are quite a few heavy users there that are quick to help sift through questions that should probably be closed. Losing my votes there should not be a big deal.

I want to be a moderator because I get frustrated when there's any delay in sorting out abuses. I have to say, I think 10K users are pretty damn good with their powers, but every now and then, you want to be sure there's moderator coverage round-the-clock.

@badp I understand that. Up until now, most of my activity has been in those tags, because that's where my expertise lies. If I were to become a moderator, my scope would expand to the entire site. Since I don't have as much expertise in other areas, I'd say it's probably a good thing that I wouldn't be voting to close as much. I'd much rather that normal users let the consensus show.

@badp Re: Losing close votes: I have to be very careful in what I vote to close now, losing my close votes isn't going to change that. I've invested a lot in my 'online reputation', so I want to make sure that every action I take is not only explainable, but makes sense and is logical. See my answer to this question for one such instance where people with high reputation should do things that make sense: meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/74622/abusive-editing/…

@AdamDavis I don't think I've ever been "addicted" to a website to the point where I'm asking to be banned because I can't stop myself. I'm on SO quite a lot, but not in a way that makes it a "problem" (wow I sound like I'm in denial right now)

Would you suspend a user who repeatedly posts replies to their questions in answers instead of comments who has been told of the proper procedure, and if so, for how long? If not, what action would you take instead, if any?

@AdamDavis Yes I feel addicted. I think it's a good thing. It keeps my activity high. And I learn lots of new things on the site all of the time. I am constantly checking for new content on the site. So I feel my 'addiction' is a positive thing for moderatorship.

Re decision to close: I can't really find a single question right now that I had qualms closing, though I know they exists. Typical such situation is questions which contains just enough code to be a good one on SO, but yet contains tons of subjective matter and would thus be a good fit on P.SE as well. Whether I choose to close such questions or not depends on the amount of answers/comments it already has, existing close requests, etc.

> Why I want to be a moderator: I love the community atmosphere here on StackOverflow (and the related sites). I think the SE team has done a fantastic job at building a platform where people can come and find high quality information. I want to make sure that that continues. I can do a lot already as a +10k rep user, but I'm more than willing to do more.

I want to be a moderator because I believe that my stance towards questions and answers on Stack Overflow is supported by a large majority of the active community, and I want to continue to support the community by making sure that every viable question is given a fair chance, and that questions that need to be cleaned up are cleaned up. (see my reputation on Meta as supporting evidence: meta.stackoverflow.com/users/16587/george-stocker )

Addicted to StackOverflow: not as much as I have been in the past. I went through a phase of constantly watching my ranking, and when I got the 1st page of users, I relaxed! I read it several times a day though, but find myself doing more cleanup / 'welcome to stackoverflow' type stuff now.

@waiwai933 Sure; if somebody has been told the proper procedure and is still dragging down site quality, they should absolutely end up binned for a short while. If they kept at it you can always increase the length, but I think even a single ban for that sort of thing is extremely rare; people are normally pretty receptive to feedback

Re: suspending user with comments in answers. Personally I don't believe (yet) that that behaviour is worthy of a suspension, though I'm sure other existing moderators with more air under their wing would be able to provide guidance. I'm sure there are some rules regarding suspension that lists the infractions that are black and white, and some guidelines on the gray-area ones (at least I hope so.)

@waiwai933 I will not suspend users lightly. Only after they have been warned through email a few times would I suspend. Only for a short period. (1 day) I'd just want to send the message that we really don't want people replying in answers.

@ErickRobertson I don't think I've ever needed to personally deal with somebody who literally refuses to change their behavior; it's always been the case that they just didn't realize they were doing something wrong. But sure; if they don't care about doing things the right way then there's no reason to let them keep being a problem

> Am I addicted to StackOverflow: Um, probably :-/ I'm on here every single day, and it's a rare day when I haven't written at least one answer. Good impact: the questions on here prompt me to discover new things. Many of the factoids I know I learned because of questions on SO. Bad impact: I spend a lot of time on the site...

@Waiwai933 re: suspension: There are many steps to take before suspension: First, replying to the user in a comment, second, privately communicating with the user, and if neither of those work, then finally, suspending the user for the littlest amount of time possible. If that doesn't work, then a longer suspension. Suspensions are a heavy stick. The one thing we don't want to do is just use heavy handed justice too soon, because that will turn off people to coming to Stack Overflow.

@waiwai993: on the suspension question: No, I wouldn't suspend. The wider community of 10K users can do a lot to correct that situation with the tools available. That should gently educate them into the StackOverflow way, IMHO.

@BilltheLizard Depends if you mean auto-flagged or flagged by a /review watcher. I'm currently pretty unimpressed with the auto-flags, they're usually wrong; flags by an actual person are usually right. Generally I end up editing them rather than deleting them, or converting to a comment; it's rare for the post to be completely beyond saving

Re: large number of flags. I would think that would depend on why the texts was flagged. Is the answers, though they contain valuable content, full of bad language, then I would think a ban would be appropriate after fair warnings were given. I doubt hard black and white rules can be written for that sort of thing though.

@Shog9 good questions/lots of argument flags: I think 3-4 warnings by email then I'd want to see them suspended. there are plenty of other users out there providing excellent answers. why have the community annoyed permanently by one bad egg.

@Adam davis Re: addiction: I'm not addicted to Stack Overflow as much as I'm dedicated to making sure that this online community stays a viable resource for programmers. Since the internet began we've seen our communities erode because people didn't stand up and take care of them, and Stack Overflow is one of the first communities I've seen that bakes in that process of 'tilling the garden'. I want to till the garden and give back to the community that has given me so much.

@AdamDavis There's a couple decisions I pretty strongly disagree with (I still to this day pick fights about the rep needed to comment), but on the whole we probably agree on most things. I don't think agreeing with SOIS is all that big of an issue though

@MichaelMrozek I agree with @MichaelMrozek, I think (hope?) that the number of people out to just be evil is small, and that people err because they don't know that they are doing it. Guidance and communication is probably a good way to deal with it.

@Justin I would make that judgement based on rep. If they had a little rep, two or three email warnings. If they had 10k, I might not even email. Shouldn't that depend on rep to an extent? Nooks need emails for guidance. Experienced users should know better.

@AdamDavis I mostly agree with the decisions of the Jeff/Joels. They are running a business, and they are doing what they feel is right to foster a positive community that produces great questions and answers. Some people don't understand that this is a business.

Suspending users: I don't think users should be suspended except in extreme circumstances. I don't think it does much except to frustrate and discourage them. If they're determined, they'll just create a different account. If they're not, then we've lost a potential contributor. I'd much rather focus on educating them and helping them understand how they can improve in their questioning and answering abilities, and (by extension) in their programming abilities.

@Bill: re low quality. Depends on the question. Some questions appear low quality because the asker has poor English skills. I've rewritten a few which were teetering on the edge of downvote oblivion - sometimes a little insight makes all the difference. So I'd always be mindful that a poor question can be turned around.

@Shog9 I don't think arguments are all that big of a deal, honestly, and you already saw my opinion on most comment flags on SO. But assuming you mean "how would you feel about a user that produces high quality answers but is constantly being rude/annoying people", I don't think the former allows the latter; message them about it and suspend them if they refuse to stop (again, unlikely)

@Moshe We probably shouldn't clutter up the chat with an on-the-side conversation, but repeatedly voting to close as an obvious duplicate, and then watching my vote expire as the only one makes it feel like a futile exercise.

@AdamDavis - wouldn't say I'm addicted but I do have a keen interest in what goes on. If I was addicted I'd have been on the site all weekend, but this weekend took a bit of a work/IT related holiday to recharge.

@Shog9 re: problem users: we've seen that before. The best thing to do is try to get the user to change their behavior by exploiting that which they care about. It starts with the premise that everyone wants to do well. You have to find what drives them, and gently push them towards good behavior by allowing them to do what drives them, and steering them away from the part that gets them in trouble. This, of course, is if the user is really valuable to the community.

Re: low quality, I agree with @PaulDixon, it depends. I think communication is the key (to many of the questions here) though. Most of the really low quality questions I deal with are due to bad language skills. I wish those people were to ask for help in a comment though, you'd be surprised at how much people people will give you if you just admit to not knowing.

Jeff&Joel: I have yet to find a policy they've implemented that I disagree with, mostly because I'm not looking to disagree with them. I just like to help people learn and love to participate in that environment of learning

@Adam: Re Jeff/Joel question. Pretty much agree. Personally, I think democracy in a site like this can only go so far. At some point, you need a "benevolent dictator". So far, Jeff and Joel have been very fine in this regard.

Re: Addiction, I'm "addicted" in the way that I visit it every day and try to answer questions as often as I can, though sadly there has been fewer questions I've felt I can/should answer for a short while now. I do use and recommend SO to everyone I know though, I'm still taken by the speed at which you get good answers on these sites.

@AdamDavis re: agreeing with Joel and Jeff: I find that I side more with Joel than Jeff, and anytime I've disagreed with Jeff I've laid out my arguments for why (see meta). I see them as two sides of the same coin, and I'm working on trying to better see Jeff's point of view on some things.

@Shog9 Those users need to be warned through email. Then they need to be suspended for a very short time. (1 day) so they know we are serious. But, if that fails, they should be suspended for a longer period. We don't want people poisoning the community.

Re: Agreeing with Joel and Jeff; I agree with most of their decisions, but I've also been vocal about a few I don't agree with, though most of these are now void (not as in "implemented", but mostly due to the features no longer working the way I disagreed with.)

@BillTheLizard re: Low Quality: First is trying to see if maybe this was an answer that was posted by an otherwise good answerer. If there's a history with this user and it's causing detriment to the community, then action may need to be taken. If it's just noise, then simply deleting the cruft from the system is the way to go.

Merging Questions: I'd say questions are ripe for merging if you could copy and paste the accepted answers from one to the other, and they'd still be the accepted answer. Obviously this would need to be on a case-by-case basis (especially with the recent change in direction regarding duplicates).

Based on your observations of current SO diamond moderators and Meta.SO and thus diamond moderation policy, how long do you think it would take for you to learn the ropes and be comfortable with the diamond mod tools, and why?

@Erick Re: Common mistakes: We are all (myself included) way too invested in our own questions. So when others edit our questions, we react with anger when we should probably take a 'wait and see' approach. Our egos get in our ways sometimes.

@Shog9 (Merging): I really don't like merging questions. Remember some duplicates are ok! I just think that the duplicate with the least content should be closed as a duplicate and linked to the other.

Re: Common mistakes: Formatting seems to be a major problem for new users, I wonder if the preview part of the web page is not prominent enough, or moved too far down. Should a mandatory "please review your question before posting" page be shown for new users? (is such a page shown for new users?)

@Shog9 The info text about it is pretty clear, actually: "Questions should be merged when they are 99% identical and it would be beneficial to have all the answers in one place.". I'm not really in agreement with SOIS about generalizing questions to the point where you're changing the likely answers though. If a question is asked that's a subset of an existing question, and that question already has answers that address the new question, it's probably safe to merge

re: agreeing with J&J - can't say I'm always in agreement with them, not sure I should be. but that said, if it's site convention then I go with it. There's always meta to gauge what the rest of the community thinks with a question or challenge.

@waiwai933 (Mod Tools): From what I know, I feel I could get the hang of things quickly. I have interacted with mods enough to know what they have access to, and the idea behind using them. I'd say, give me a week or so.

@Shog9: Re merging. For a merge, the questions must be identical both in theme and the direction from which they are asked. This is going to be hard to explain without a concrete example, but what I mean is that I think questions serve to leave a trail for people that will find them later. Merging can potential remove such a trail, reducing the usefulness of the site.

Improvement to SO: I know this has been shot down in the past, but I still think that some sort of "private messaging" system could be really beneficial. For example, if a user is continually posting answers that should be edits to a question, it'd be nice to be able to PM them explaining how things work, as opposed to trying to cram it into a comment.

@ErickRobertson Not understanding the distinction between questions, answers, and comments, which is conveniently one of the ways mods help quite a lot, since they're the only people that can delete answers or convert answers to comments. At the moment the only way I know to help people is to comment telling them what they did wrong, but hopefully at some point the engine itself is changed to clear up the confusion about when you should post an answer vs. a comment or a new question

@Pierre303 (Improving SO): I would like people to be more friendly to people that aren't great with english. Lots of viable questions get closed just because of the language barrier. I don't think that's right.

Question: do you feel that you tend towards "keeping the site clean/exclusiveness" (if you see a closed question with little merit as a mod, say, you'll delete it), or "allow more than some/inclusiveness" (you tend to vote to re-open more than others, to give questions a chance)?

@waiwai933 I'm a pro-tem mod on one of the SE sites, so I know the tools; I assume SO's massive number of flags introduces some new challenges though. I don't expect much in the way of ramp-up time, but I don't think any of the nominees would have much difficulty

@MichaelPetrotta re: Close vs. Open: As my record shows, I try to rehabilitate bad questions (by editing them to improve them, or retagging them), and when a question can't be rehabilitated, I vote to close it. If it's blatantly off topic, I'll vote to close it and let the OP know why. In everything I do, I try to be that person that makes it better before it's just closed.

Re: exclusive/open: I have an open mind, and I have messed up things in my personal life pretty badly some times and been given second chances by my friends and family, I believe in second chances. Within limits of course. If I think it might be doable I currently try to help people get their answers rather than just getting rid of the question because it's not "on topic" or "good enough"

@RebeccaChernoff (Time): I plan on spending around 2-3 hours a day moderating. I don't answer nearly as many questions as I used to, and I usually just spend my time on the site reading editing and closing. I am constantly refreshing SO.

@MichaelPetrotta I very much dislike when people choose to close questions that just need to be edited (e.g. the poster doesn't know English well and it's a bit difficult to read); I'll happily edit those and reopen them (I do it now, except my reopen isn't binding)

Re: Time spent moderating, probably 1-2 hours a day, though I would think this would be hard to quantify. I am online most of my day, both working day and at home, and I would think the actual things I would do (edit for language, comment for clarity, mod for quality) would blend together. Though to be exact, that's what I expect, if I have the time I would just do what is needed, it's not like I would say "Ok, that's 2 hours of modding, where's my coffee"

@Rebecca Re:"Time spent moderating" I usually spend about 10 minutes every hour just pruning things on Stack Overflow, and in the evenings I'm around frequently. Stack Overflow is mostly self-regulating, but there are occasions where I findmyself tweeting to @BilltheLizard that a question needs to be closed or there's a problem user.

@waiwai933: re tools. I think it might take a week or two until I'd learned the most appropriate use of the additional tools. In the same way that when you reach 10k, you don't suddenly start mucking around with everything, you need to get some feel for what is appropriate (and what has gone before).

@RebeccaChernoff I suspect this is a trick question since the SF town hall was talking about burnout, but I'm on miscellaneous SE sites pretty much all day long; I just refresh periodically to see if any interesting questions have come up. On Unix I drop everything if I see a flag since they're so rare; on SO I assume there are flags all the time, so that won't work anymore, but I'll probably try and go through the list if I see a large number of new flags I haven't looked at

@Pierre 303 re: Number of moderators: It's an ever growing community. The real question is, "Currently, are there times on Stack Overflow where problems seem to be happening more than they're fixed?" If the answer is yes, then we need more moderators.

@Pierre303 I actually didn't expect SO to have an election; my flags get handled really fast as-is. Possibly the current mods have been working too hard though. (Edit: Mostly by @BilltheLizard, who's apparently in pain )

Re: Number of moderators. There's some situations where flags are left longer than necessary (in my opinion) so though we have quite a few good moderators already, they can't be expected to work round the clock. Having a few more is a good thing I think, to get more coverage.

Moderator learning curve: Obviously everything has a learning curve. I'd estimate that I'd probably get to understand the basics of the tools in a couple of days, but since I've never seen them, I really have no idea. However, I consider myself a pretty intelligent guy, so it shouldn't be too big of a problem :)

@ErickRobertson (Common mistake): Definitely tagging and poor quality of questions. People dont understand that we require questions to be good and answerable on the site for them to survive. I would promote teaching people how to ask good questions.

@Pierre 303 Re: SO improvements: I'd like to see people who make bad questions better (the editors and retaggers) get something for their efforts. That's what separates Stack Overflow from Just Another Programmer forum: The ability to turn rough questions into quality questions.

@John (Incoming migrated question): Yes, mods should be able to see newly migrated questions. However there should be a voting mechanism. And mods shouldn't have to approve a question for it to be mighrated; they should just have to option to vote to reject it.

@Rebecca: Re time spent moderating: I have a 4-screen setup in my office, and I'd have a window open on SO from 0900-1800 UTC. From 2000-0000 I'm normally online and checking SO too. During those hours, I'd be able to respond to flagged items very quickly.

@waiwai933 Re: Time to learn: I think the initial learning curve of the tools would be minutes, but the actual usage of them I think I already have since I participate heavily in community discussion. I feel like I have a good pulse on what the community wants.

@Pierre303 @GeorgeStocker Re: SO improvements: I agree with george here. I've spent 15-20mins pulling a Q&A thread back to sanity with edits, merging updates as answers into the OP etc. It's a canutian task which often goes unrecognised

@Shog9 I think editors (I guess that term is ambiguous now, but I mean 2k users) do a great job. I'm less convinced that new users are good at it; I've seen some very poor edit suggestions in the short time that feature's been up

@Shog9: re ability to edit answers: it's another one of those features that differentiates from a forum. I'd say it is certainly one of the greatest for that reason. It allows older information to be corrected (or just plain wrong information).

@Shog9 Editing other people's answers: At first I had a selfish approach to it, because I wanted the reputation. Now I just want the person to find the best answer possible, so I've started doing things like this: stackoverflow.com/questions/4763550/…

Re: Deleting content; I would ask "why are we closing it". Is it because it has had its fair share of answers and is now just attracting noise, like "What's your favorite color for comments", or does the question actually contain bad language or similar? I would close a question that has had "enough" answers, I would delete if I deem inappropriate.

@BradLarson I rarely delete closed posts, which I think is different from most people; I've gotten in arguments over whether or not a post should be deleted. Obviously spam posts and posts beyond savings are out, and useful duplicates should stay; it's the gray area in between that I tend to leave undeleted when most people vote to delete. But then again, I guess for someone with a binding vote that's probably the way to go

Number of moderators: As the site continues to grow, we'll need more and more moderators. I haven't noticed a distinct need for more moderators, but I also try to do as much cleanup myself as possible. I think I've needed a moderator about once a month.

@Brad Re: Closed vs. Closed an deleting: Closed when the question outlives its usefulness for new information. Deleted when it's outlived its usefulness and it has no redeeming value to someone coming in from Google.

@BradLarson (deleting): I hate deleting content. Only actively negative content should be deleted. Spam, incomprehensible garbage, or offensive content. I suppose stuff that is off-topic and closed can be deleted too. But I probably wont do that myself.

Closing vs Deleting questions: I believe in deleting questions when there's no way you could get a good and relevant answer out of it and the archival value of the question itself is negligible. A closed question will still show up in search results, and so a question is only worth deleting if it detracts from finding correct information.

@waiwai933: I have low meta rep, though I do read it. If I became a moderator I would feel obliged to be more active there, and I wouldn't have a problem with that. I think people should expect to see how site moderators stand on the issues raised there.

@Rebecca Re: Burnout: I spend a 'natural' amount of time on Stack Overflow, in that I'm not constantly looking at new questions, but because of my work, the natural rythym of my day allows me to spend time on Stack Overflow in intervals that don't cause burnout.

@RebeccaChernoff (Burnout): I can't imagine getting burned out at this point. SO is still a really fun 'game' for me. I really enjoy visiting hte site and interacting with tons of smart programmers every day. The day I get burnt out will be a very sad day indeed. And it will be a very long time from now.

@LasseVKarlsen wouldn't that discourage complaints at some point? People shouldn't be afraid to complain and stand for their views if they believe it's right. Of course everyone has to listen too, and accept when proven wrong.

Low MSO rep: I admit, I've never been very active on MSO, because I've usually been very content with the functionality and behavior of SO. However, this election process has taught me that I need to be more active there, so I've started incorporating MSO into my list of sites I routine visit.

@Pierre303 (calm down people): No. That is the job of other editors. If it becomes a reoccurring problem, then yes, a mod should step in. But we have a great community of editors that can edit out agression for us. (I woudl edit comments if flagged though)

@Pierre303 The moderator is sort of a gentle guide to keeping SO on track. The theory is to do the least amount possible to keep it on track (don't 'over-moderate'). Becoming friends with people and using the friendships to effect change in their behavior is the best way to moderate. The community keeps people in line pretty well, moderators only need to step in when it gets out of hand.

@rebecca: re burnout: I think you just need a sense of perspective. If it you get out less than you put in, you just have to stop. There's no point in feeling overwhelmed, or frustrated. I'm a very laid back individual though!

@Pierre303 They certainly can, although hopefully regular users are doing that as well. I've seen mods step in when a comment thread is out of control, but it's pretty rare; in very rare cases I've seen them wipe out whole comment threads that were completely useless. Hopefully the community will handle most of that

@Pierre303 Do you think it's the role of the moderator to calm down condescending, arrangant, disdainful, or aggressive...: most definitely. Also the mod has to approach this by not being equally condescending or patronising initially.

@Pierre303 Re: Calming people down. Well, if I come across a person being condescending or similar, I would ask that person to moderate himself (no pun intended), but that would be as a fellow user of the site. I figure that if he doesn't stop doing what he does, others will start flagging his comments/answers and a moderator would have to step in. As I said earlier, I hope people that wants to be evil are few in numbers and that most problems are due to people not knowing that they generate noise.

Burnout: I believe that all things should be done in moderation (except for consuming chocolate). If I feel I'm getting burned out on SO, then I may sit back and let my brain rest for a day before diving back in. However, I'm coming up on 600 consecutive days of contribution and I haven't gotten burned out yet, so I think I've done pretty well at keeping things in balance.

@Michael re: Edit suggestions: It's a step in the right direction, but I think it's going to create more work for people. If we instead encouraged editing by giving it reputation rewards (much like we do for answers), then we could do this without as much work.

@pierre: The entire community can calm down those incidents, but moderators can help to lend a little gravitas, not just because of the tools, but because they are likely to have resolved similar situations in the past. Moderators can thus not only deal with the problem, but illustrate to other active users the most diplomatic way to deal with such problems.

Dealing with angry posts: Would it be my job to "calm them down"? I don't think so. I'd say it would be my job to simply inform them that their behavior isn't contributing to the site and that if it continues, they'd be subject to [appropriate moderator action]. Hopefully they'll be smart enough to take the hint, and if not then that's their choice.

@Shog9 Re: Comment thread wiping. Well, if nothing good can come out of the thread, then I would assume wiping it would go hand in hand with sterner measures regarding the people, but I can't say I've seen such a situation so I don't know why they are wiped (yet.) For instance, if you got two people in a name-calling fight, wiping that part of the thread is probably a good idea, but a good talking-to of the participants is probably a good idea too.

@badp (diamond): I will probably act a little more responsibly. I represent the community, so I need to be respectful, and helpful, and patient. I realize that people might look at me differently, but I'm ok with that.

With respect to people bringing their grievances to MSO, moderators may often be in a position where their input is necessary to explain a particular decision. The OP in these cases may not be willing to accept that explanation, at least at first. How do you determine when trying to help a user stops being productive, and starts becoming a waste of time, and how does this determination impact your general moderation philosophy (as far as closing versus encouraging edits, etc.)?

@badp: re 'diamonds'. In another community I'm active on (geocaching) moderators use a separate username when acting in an official capacity. Obviously, SO lacks this (and rightly so, I think). I don't think it will change how I act, as I always post with the mindset of "does this reflect well on me, and does it reflect well on the site".

@badp: Re diamond: You know, that's one part of being a moderator I'm not sure I like, but at the same time I like it. I'm a bit dual opinioned on that issue. First of all, people should know that I'm a moderator, so that when I finally step out of the shadows and ... you know ... moderate, it doesn't come as a surprise. I don't like undercover cops. On the other hand, getting that diamond on everything, yes, people will see things in a new light.

@badp Should I be afraid that my answers would be deemed "better" just because I'm a moderator? Would people think "Oh, and here comes a moderator to save the day... woopdeedoo". I just don't know.

@RebeccaChernoff (meta feedback): I would love feedback in meta!! The only way I know I'm doing a good/bad job is for people to tell me. I'm always willing to listen and learn. And if I act in a way that needs to be called out, then I hope somebody is willing to do that.

@badp re: Shining light: I'm glad Moderator actions are reviewed by the community. I think it's invaluable to the long term thriving of the community. More transparency is always better. If a moderator can't logically articulate why they took an action, then they shouldn't take that action. "because I said so" does not, and should not work. Ever.

A diamond is forever: having a diamond attached to everything I do is an interesting question. Because I experience something similar already with my work, I've learned that I sometimes have to pre- and post-fix my contributions with stuff like "this is my own opinion and not that of [my employer]". Beyond that, I consider myself a person of integrity, and expect that none of my actions would ever be seen as negatively affecting the site.

@badp I honestly prefer the reddit style, where you look like a normal user most of the time and you click a button to say "and now I'm speaking as a mod". I don't post answers much anyone these days (as I said, I must prefer editing and other maintenance stuff), so I don't think it'll be a big deal; if I were going to be posting answers a lot, I honestly would probably make a sockpuppet for it :)

@RebeccaChernoff Re: Reversing actions. Yes, absolutely. Not on a whim mind you, but though I have strong opinions and convictions (is that the right word?) I'm not adverse to changing my mind and/or admitting I was/is wrong. I would assume such a message, ie. "you need to fix that, revert it" would come partly from other high-rep members of the community, or other moderators. I wouldn't reverse closing a post or whatnot just because the person that posted it disagreed.

@Rebecca: re reversing an action: I think I'd do my best to explain the reasoning, but if there were good arguments to the contrary, you have to learn from that. Moderators are individuals, and aren't always going to act in identical ways.

MSO discussion about me: No one is above the law. :) If the community feels that I've moderated in error, I'm not so proud as to not take correction. I may try to argue for my position, but in the end I will accept the community's decision.

@Rebecca Re: Questions raised on meta: I would answer them in public, right there. Of course, if I took an action that would cause issues, I would make sure the person who I took it against would know first, so that there was no confusion on their part. That person and I should have a dialog that predates the action and postdates the action.

@TimStone (disagreeing with people): If I can't convince someone that the action I took was right, I might ask for a second opinion from a mod. I'm not infalable, I make mistakes. So before I brush this person off, I'd make sure I did the right thing.

@Rebecca Re: Being wrong: If I'm wrong, I'm confident the community will tell me loudly, and I would own up if it were a mistake I made. I try to move gently enough that those instances would be few and far between.

@RebeccaChernoff - reversing actions reported on MSO - would depend. If the action complied with site conventions then no (and cite relevant faq). If the action was a grey area then I think I'd have had a chat with other mods before taking said action.

@TimStone re: Users disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing: When the determination is made that they're just rabble rousing, then it becomes a "Don't feed the troll." Issue. The community will see it for what it is, and if the moderator has done anything wrong, then community will say so. If the user is in the wrong, the community will say so. That's one of the best things about our Meta site.

@Brad: re deleting: Content should be deleted if it offers no future value to the people that will read it tomorrow, next week and next year. Deleting just to clear up a flame war might not be the best thing: battlefields should not be paved over! They should be preserved as monuments for those that come later :)

Grievances: just as I'm willing to answer questions related to programming, I'm willing to answer questions about my behavior. The point where I stop being willing is something that depends on the questions being asked, how the questioner is accepting my input, what other moderators are saying, etc.

@systempuntoout: Re deletionist/inclusionist. The case you bring up "What was your first home computer" is not a good question for this site (any more.) I would, depending on the question, migrate it, or if not, close it (optionally delete it.) However, as stated before, I tend to be open minded. "On topic" is a gray area and needs some leniency, just within limits.

@systempuntoout (deletionist?): I've said this a few times, but I'm an inclusionist. I will not delete questions unless absolutely necessary. I understand the decision to do it. And I am ok with it. However, you will not see me deleting that content.

@systempuntoout I'm personally a deletionist when it comes to those (unless they're old, in which case I just ignore them since trying to apply a policy retroactively is pretty difficult), but I would anticipate just not voting on them at all as a mod; the community can handle that sort of thing

@systempunto (re: Deletionist vs Inclusionist) GTKY questions that have value to googlers are different than GTKY questions like your first computer. As an example, I recently googled 'Good mice for programmers'. This question is a great question, but it doesn't belong on Stack Overflow. I hope it has a home on Programmers, though. But it does have use (not as much as the "Best Keyboard for programmers though). see: chat.stackoverflow.com/transcript/505?m=288908#288908

Deleting popular questions: questions like "what was your 1st computer" and "what's your favorite joke" are fun, but I don't think they really have much to do with questions about how to program. In those cases, I'd be a "deletionist", because they don't belong on the site

@RebeccaChernoff That's pretty much exactly the case where I wish mods had non-binding votes; I'd like to vote to close them, but I don't want to just close them single-handedly, I'd prefer that other people be involved. I'd probably wait for the inevitable close votes from other people and vote fifth; that's what other mods seem to do

@Rebecca Re: Popular off topic questions: Let the community duke it out at first. Only step in if and when the community has not reached a consensus. The first 48 hours generate the most turmoil for a question, so it should be watched closely during that time.

@RebeccaChernoff: Re: answers/comments/upvotes to off-topic content. I would think that if the quality of the question is good, the quality of the answers are good, and the question is not entirely off-topic, I would think it should deserve a chance. However, there's also the problem now that there's so many users here that a handful of relatively new users shouldn't make a precedent on what the site contains. If enough of the new ones vote up, does that make it right? I would have to say no.

Handling off-topic questions: I'd probably start by posting a comment saying that it's off topic and discouraging people from answering. Depending on the question, it may lead to closing and/or deletion, but I'd probably consult with other moderators first (especially if the question is getting Hot)

@RebeccaChernoff Old off-topic questions with lots of votes should stay. New off-topic questions shouldn't have time to gain votes. They should be moved to the proper site and be answered/voted on there.

When there's a level of uncertainty about what action you should take, you may be inclined to discuss it with your fellow moderators (as has been mentioned by a few of you). How long are you willing to put off a decision, should no one else be available? That is, is relatively swift action more important than caution, under the assumption that you can reverse your decision in many cases?

@MichaelPetrotta : I think I'm more of an inclusionist, though I find myself closing more than I reopen. I feel it can be desperately unfair sometimes when a question gets closed so fast before a few edits or clarifications can be made.

@rebecca but what seems to happen is that the Moderators stay out of it at first. Unless there's a compelling reason to change that, I'll continue that trend. It's one of those 'let's cross that bridge when we come to it' problems.

One thing I would have to say generally. Moderation is not a shoot-from-the-hip type of action. If I would come across a question I feel needs moderation, but it's not an air-tight case, I would let it sit and see how the rest of the community reacts. Things like downvotes, close requests, heavily editing it, etc. would be things that speak against it. If the overal reaction after some time is just positivt, then that speaks for it.

@Shog9: Re scope, I don't think any of the sites have earner the nickname "trash bin", though I feared P.SE would end up as one in its early days, looks much more promising now though. I feel I understand their scope pretty good though.